Download PDF of this full issue: v35n2.pdf (18.1 MB)

Fraggin'

By Bill Shunas

Can you say "Iraq Syndrome"? There was the Vietnam Syndrome, which was supposed to mean that the people of the United States wouldn't and shouldn't ever again sanction a major war of dubious relevance to our safety. Then came the Gulf War, which was successful and supposedly shattered the Vietnam Syndrome.

The thing to realize about the Gulf War was that George the First thought that taking Baghdad was a can of worms better left unopened, so he left the Shiite allies to Saddam's lack of mercy and quickly ended it. George the First decided that caution was the better part of valor and wisely stopped short of Baghdad. Unlike most wars, the victory was a bit unstable, because it was declared without taking the enemy's capitol; but it was enough to enable them to declare that the Vietnam Syndrome was dead.

Unfortunately, eight years after George the Cautious came George the Arrogant. During those eight years, the Gulf War receded into the past, and the frat boys began slapping themselves on the back. To them, taking the Gulf looked to have been easy. Casualties were acceptable. Press on. Once again, they had the mistaken idea that superior technology (and in this case, the rout of 1991) was all that was needed to win a war.

Heeding the advice of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the like, George the Arrogant went forth and proceeded to get into a mess in Iraq. He so believed the talk that he declared victory after the first battle. Since then things have deteriorated in most imaginable ways.

So now we are going to have the Iraq Syndrome, which is the Vietnam Syndrome all over again. With the American people looking at the rising cost of war there—and the need for hurricane relief here—you've got to think this will be the last major war for a while. (Of course, there will be minor wars all around the globe. You can't change old habits.)

Bush and his advisors have many reasons to be dismayed by what's happening in Iraq. Certainly one of their disappointments is that they're hot to go into Iran, but there is a shortage of troops. Enlistment is down, and troops are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran would be even more of a mess, because of the terrain and a more solidified opposition. And because of the newly developing Iraq Syndrome, there would be no support for an Iran invasion.

That's good, but one worry is that in the past, these Bush people have speculated about the feasibility of using nuclear weapons, tactical and otherwise. Because they can't send troops to Iran, would they use nukes? In the eighties, there was much talk about nuclear winters and the devastating effect of even tactical nukes. I haven't heard talk like that lately, and the consensus might have disappeared, especially among the arrogant and shallow intellects and the oil men and woman in the Bush administration. Anyway, a war in Iran seems unlikely for the moment, and these nuclear thoughts may be dismissed as an occasional resurfacing of latent sixties paranoia. So back to Iraq.

Perhaps the worst thing about the whole affair is the party of opposition—the Democrats. Here we are involved in a war of illegitimate origin; that fact is not even challenged anymore. We are bogged down in that war. We are not winning hearts and minds. The flag-draped coffins are accumulating. Polls are showing that more than half of Americans are opposed to the war. Still, the most prominent Democrats—and the Democratic Party as a whole—are talking about staying the course in Iraq. How sad.

The projected 2008 Democratic candidates like Clinton, Biden and Kerry are not talking about ending this thing. It doesn't take a PhD to figure it out. If for no other reason than political expediency (since more than half the voters oppose the war), you'd think that one of them would come out in favor of a troop withdrawal. That person might just jump into the lead for the nomination. Duh! The only potential candidate to come out for withdrawal is Senator Russ Feingold, who suggested a withdrawal date of December 31, 2006. The end of 2006? Don't go too far out on the limb, Russ. By that time there will be five hundred to a thousand more U.S. dead, tens of thousands more Iraqis dead, and a couple of thousand new terrorists created.

So much for the idea of the Democratic Party being the party of the people. Are the oil companies donating to the Democratic presidential campaigns too?

Meanwhile, George the Arrogant keeps talking about Freedom, Democracy, Terrorism, and Security. These are buzzwords he used in the past to gain support for whatever he wanted. The words are starting to lose their effectiveness as wars and hurricanes swirl around George the Arrogant, and he looks more like George the Confused. He sadly clings to these words as his answer to everything.

If he's asked how it's going in Iraq, his answer is "Democracy."

Afghanistan? "Freedom."

Why do we need Social Security reform? "Freedom."

Jenna's prom dress? "Security."

Iran? "Terrorism."

John Roberts' Supreme Court nomination? "Democracy."

Hurricane Katrina? "Terrorism."

The sinking economy? "Freedom."

Life with Laura? "Security."

Hurricane Rita? "Security."

Homeland Security? "Democracy."

Growing up as Barbara's son? "Terrorism."

Tax cuts for the wealthy? "Freedom."

His college-age drug habits? "Democracy."

Poor people? "Freedom."

Higher gas prices? "Security."

How will the world assess eight years of George the arrogant? Terrorism.